Opinion
2018–06879 Ind. No. 828/17
12-04-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Antwon D. ALLEN, Appellant.
Andrew E. MacAskill, Westbury, NY, for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Jason R. Richards and Rebecca L. Abensur of counsel), for respondent.
Andrew E. MacAskill, Westbury, NY, for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Jason R. Richards and Rebecca L. Abensur of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court, and generally the court's determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see CPL 220.60[3] ; People v. Alexander, 97 N.Y.2d 482, 485, 743 N.Y.S.2d 45, 769 N.E.2d 802 ; People v. Smith, 148 A.D.3d 939, 939–940, 49 N.Y.S.3d 501 ; People v. Street, 144 A.D.3d 711, 711–712, 39 N.Y.S.3d 824 ; People v. Rodriguez, 142 A.D.3d 1189, 1190, 38 N.Y.S.3d 224 ). "Generally, a plea of guilty may not be withdrawn absent some evidence of innocence, fraud, or mistake in its inducement" ( People v. Smith, 54 A.D.3d 879, 880, 863 N.Y.S.2d 818 ; see People v. Rodriguez, 142 A.D.3d at 1190, 38 N.Y.S.3d 224 ; People v. Zakrzewski, 7 A.D.3d 881, 881, 776 N.Y.S.2d 377 ). When a defendant moves to withdraw a plea of guilty, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rests largely in the discretion of the court, and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances (see People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d 926, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 ; People v. Street, 144 A.D.3d at 712, 39 N.Y.S.3d 824 ). Here, the record reflects that the defendant's plea of guilty was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 546, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646 ; People v. John, 107 A.D.3d 824, 825, 967 N.Y.S.2d 127 ). The defendant's post-plea assertions that he was innocent contradicted the admissions made under oath at his plea allocution, and were insufficient to warrant vacatur of his plea, a hearing, or further inquiry by the court (see People v. Tinsley, 35 N.Y.2d at 927, 365 N.Y.S.2d 161, 324 N.E.2d 544 ; People v. Street, 144 A.D.3d at 712, 39 N.Y.S.3d 824 ; People v. Rodriguez, 142 A.D.3d at 1190, 38 N.Y.S.3d 224 ; People v. Upson, 134 A.D.3d 1058, 1058, 21 N.Y.S.3d 688 ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., MALTESE, LASALLE and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.